Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce rapport de recherche présente et analyse les enjeux des chaînes de publication dans le cadre de la production de documents complexes comme des catalogues ou des encyclopédies dans le champ de l'histoire de l'art. Après une contextualisation et la présentation de la méthodologie, plusieurs forges de publication sont détaillées, ainsi qu'un cas d'étude. Ce rapport de recherche est une réalisation du groupe de recherche Collections et impératif événementiel/The Convulsive Collections (CIÉCO). Il a été rédigé par Roch Delannay et Antoine Fauchié, doctorants au moment de la rédaction de ce rapport, sous la direction d'Emmanuel Château-Dutier, Michael Sinatra et Marcello Vitali-Rosati (professeurs à l'Université de Montréal). Cette version est un preprint de ce travail de recherche.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.059 | 0.239 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.030 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".